9

Call $P(k): k!<k^k$, for $k\geq 2$
Test it out with 2, and it's true ($2<4$).

Assume that $P(k)$ is true for some $k\geq2$.

Then show that $P(k+1)$ is true.

$P(k+1): (k+1)!<(k+1)^{k+1}$

Ministep: $(k+1)!=k!(k+1)$
Ministep: $(k+1)^{k+1}=(k+1)^{k}(k+1)$

$k!(k+1)<(k+1)^{k}(k+1)$

Can I just pull out that (k+1) and call it a day? That will make $k!<(k+1)^{k}$.

We're already assuming that $k!<k^k$, for some integer $k\geq 2$, and I don't think I need to prove that $k^{k}<(k+1)^{k}$. I mean, I guess I could go prove that as well, but let's assume for the moment that I don't have to. Since we're assuming the original $P(k)$ is true, I should be able to write $k!<k^{k}<(k+1)^{k}$ right? That would prove the $k+1$ case. Is this the correct way to go about things? It seems too easy, but makes sense.

Thanks for confirmation and/or pointing out mistakes!

Bob
  • 667
  • Yes, you are right. – Apurv May 01 '15 at 05:50
  • $k!=1.2.3....k, k^k=k.k.k...k$, which makes it fairly obvious – JMP May 01 '15 at 06:00
  • 3
    Induction proofs never begin "Assume $P(k)$ is true for $k\geq2$." An induction proof would begin "Assume $P(k)$ is true for some one specific value of $k$." – 2'5 9'2 May 01 '15 at 22:30
  • OK, so, you're mixed up between your line 3, where $k\geq 2$ should be read out loud as "for some $k$ at least 2", and your line 10, where you have interpreted $k\geq 2$ to mean "for (all) integers at least 2". – 2'5 9'2 May 01 '15 at 22:33
  • @alex.jordan I fixed line 3, how would I fix line 10 (feel free to propose an edit)? Also, is the gist of it correct (assuming I fix the notation)? – Bob May 02 '15 at 00:18
  • Instead of "for integers $k>2$", "for an integer $k>2$" would sound right to my ears.

    So, there is this step where $k^k<(k+1)^k$, which is a simple step up from $k<k+1$. If that's an OK thing to work from, then why not the following, which is only a tiny bit more involved: $1<k,2<k,\ldots k-1<k,k\leq k\implies k!<k^k$?

    – 2'5 9'2 May 02 '15 at 02:23
  • More generally, $n!\le n^{n-1}$ for all $n\ge 1$. For proof, see here. – user26486 May 07 '15 at 02:05
  • 1
    Duplicate of this question, but everything about this is better so I don't feel like closing it as duplicate. – user26486 May 07 '15 at 02:06

3 Answers3

5

I should be able to write $k!<k^{k}<(k+1)^{k}$ right?

Sort of. The key part, which it sounds like you called "too easy," is realizing that you can use $k^k<(k+1)^k$ in the context of the proof; that is, this realization makes it possible to easily get from the left-hand side of what you need to prove to the right-hand side. Nonetheless, I would encourage you to take a look at this post on how to write a clear induction proof. Your proof is not as clear as it could be with the sidebar "ministeps," the fact that you never once mentioned where you used the inductive hypothesis, etc. If you were my student, then I would probably give you 8/10. My point in answering is to provide what I think, in my humble opinion, is a nice way of writing up the proof. I hope it helps.


Claim: For $n\geq 2, n\in\mathbb{Z}, n!<n^n$.

Proof. For $n\geq 2, n\in\mathbb{Z}$, let $P(n)$ denote the statement $$ P(n) : n!<n^n. $$ Base case ($n=2$): $P(2)$ says that $2!=2<4=2^2$, and this is true.

Inductive step $P(k)\to P(k+1)$: Fix some $k\geq 2$, and assume that $$ P(k) : \color{blue}{k!<k^k} $$ holds. To be shown is that $P(k+1)$ follows where $$ P(k+1) : \color{green}{(k+1)!<(k+1)^{k+1}}. $$ Starting with the left-hand side of $P(k+1)$, \begin{align} \color{green}{(k+1)!} &= (k+1)\cdot \color{blue}{k!}\tag{by definition}\\[0.5em] &< (k+1)\cdot\color{blue}{k^k}\tag{by $P(k)$, the ind. hyp.}\\[0.5em] &< (k+1)(k+1)^k\tag{since $k<k+1$}\\[0.5em] &= \color{green}{(k+1)^{k+1}},\tag{by definition} \end{align} we end up at the right-hand side of $P(k+1)$, completing the inductive step.

By mathematical induction, the statement $P(n)$ is true for all integers $n$ where $n\geq 2$. $\blacksquare$

1

You are right, But I like to think about it in another way.

Assume $P(k)$ is true for some $k \geq 2$ which means that $$k! < k^k$$

Now multiply each side of the inequality by $k+1$

We get that $k!(k+1) < k^k(k+1)$.

Now we know that $k!(k+1) = (k+1)! = $ LHS of the inequality

and we also know that $k^k(k+1) < (k+1)^k(k+1) = (k+1)^{k+1} $

And so you have $$(k+1)! < k^k(k+1) < (k+1)^k(k+1) = (k+1)^{k+1}$$

It's kind of easier to read through this

alkabary
  • 6,464
  • 2
    Reading this helped, but I feel like you went about it backwards. It makes so much more sense to me to start with the result of P(k+1), and then take the (k+1) out of that. Instead you multiplied each side of P(k) by (k+1) first, and that happened to work out by making the (k+1)! on the left side. – Bob May 02 '15 at 00:35
  • 1
    yeah human brains are wired differently :) – alkabary May 02 '15 at 02:52
-3

Both expressions are a product of $k$ factors. It's easy to see that in $k^k$, each of the factors is larger than the factors from $k!$.

I get that you are looking for an inductive proof, but any proof is trivially inductive.

Assume $(k-1)!<(k-1)^{k-1}$. Now I need that to imply $k!<k^k$. Since $k!<k^k$, as explained above, I've done the induction step. It doesn't matter that you don't see the logical connection. It's still formally and logically true that $P(k-1)\implies P(k)$, since $P(k)$'s truth can be established independently, quickly.

2'5 9'2
  • 56,991
  • The question asked for an induction. Also, you've just copied part of my answer. – wlad May 01 '15 at 22:24
  • OK, Watch me add the induction step. One sec. – 2'5 9'2 May 01 '15 at 22:25
  • It's been done already. – wlad May 01 '15 at 22:25
  • In your question, you say :"We're already assuming that $k!<k^k$, for integers $k\geq2$". That is not at all how induction works. You are assuming $k!<k^k$ for some specific $k$, not all $k\geq2$. – 2'5 9'2 May 01 '15 at 22:29
  • No. You misread. – wlad May 01 '15 at 22:30
  • I literally copied and pasted, so I doubt that. Maybe you miswrote in your lower paragraph? "for integers $k\geq2$" implies "for all $k$", not for some specific integer $k$. – 2'5 9'2 May 01 '15 at 22:34
  • @MarceloUchimura Right. This answer does not say that. It says $(a-1)!<(a-1)^{a-1}\implies a!<a^a$ for appropriate values of $a$. – 2'5 9'2 May 03 '15 at 18:57
  • @MarceloUchimura So why did you bring up $a!<a^a$ implying $(a-1)!<(a-1)^{a-1}$? I never said that. – 2'5 9'2 May 03 '15 at 19:13
  • @MarceloUchimura In any case, do you understand how "$1=0\implies2=2$"? If not, it's pointless to continue the conversation. When the second statement from an implication statement is independently true, then the truth of the first equation is completely irrelevant. The statement "$1=0\implies2=2$" is a true statement, merely by virtue of "$2=2$" being true. Any proposition implies a true proposition. That's all I'm doing here. To technically turn this into an "induction" proof, the inductive step is a trivial one. And I never implied $P(k)\implies P(k-1)$, as your first comment suggests. – 2'5 9'2 May 03 '15 at 19:13